Read Penthouse Forum Letters

DEATH PENALTY. Jury Duty only you decide. Donation Program

By: Ivan G. Paz Fernández (*)

Since ancient times, capital punishment has always been a subject of much debate and endless discussion, today in its renewed cycle, the controversy becomes irresistible to elucidate its possible total acceptance or rejection. This booklet, serves the purpose of appealing to the reader's common sense, increasing concepts in order to broaden their vision, total at the end of it is you who could decide.

It's true that the death penalty is difficult to accept, in turn, is counterproductive to know that several of the major states this is a viable option, especially if we refer to the United States may be mentioned that, nearly forty members fifty states impose the death of death, states like Texas and California where it was abolished some time now has been reinstated by considering an effective deterrent (remember that distant and stopped being wild wild west thanks to the gallows), claiming to be serious reasons " a necessary evil "citizenship is accepted, as reflected in the paradoxical phrase referred to by some famous Texan governor who, faced with this dilemma mentioned: "I support the death penalty because I think it is a measure that saves lives ", or to be able to include more scientific arguments such as those conducted by Dr. Isaac Ehrlich of the University of Buffalo (1975), whose results suggest: " for each executed death penalty was avoided death of eight innocent."

The death penalty at all, should be discussed after comparing the abysmal differences between the systems of justice such as ours (Continental Romanist) where justice is "owned" by the judges, before the Anglo-Saxon system where Justice emanates from the people being this more just (forgive the tautology) where ordinary citizens justice issue opinions forming juries, an institution that today more and more as host countries (Brazil, Venezuela 2002, Bolivia 2003, Argentina 2004, Panama 2005, South Korea 2006), as the alternative but efficient administration of justice.

Ergo, it is more reasonable to conceptualize that capital punishment remains an issue that institutionally, upsets, moved, disturbed, shocked, and in turn is of profound human conscience and conviction, can not and must rely on the verdict of Judge Our own one-man justice system, indeed, turns out to be a heavy burden of conscience and set on the spirit and consciousness one person. Quite the contrary, viewed from a jury trial, people administering justice, "the sentence is diluted under the responsibility of a group of citizens who, with foundations and real and reliable tests to determine and approve his inexorable execution.

is suitable to mention that the death penalty (established by law) is given by a prosecutor before a jury and it is only accepted when an absolute majority - I mean accepted by the twelve members, in case there is an opposition reoriented to life - accept it after a long debate in a reasoned and convincing, given the impossibility of rehabilitating the offender, providing a conviction, obviously a conviction.

Obviously from our conception and America, such a sentence, you could always lead to a response algid connoisseurs Human Rights, to which, I can explain a basic concept framed in elementary quantities, summarized this in "The death penalty is the result of thorough evaluation and conscious conviction of a plural group of human-court-which assert their rights over a single human being-singular-offender who violates his social environment and therefore believe that not entitled to live . "

In this sense, we can be mentioned and that by accepting this kind of extreme hardship, diplomatic conflict by the fact depart from the jurisdiction of the Court of Human Rights and the Treaty of San José de Costa Rica, now is your belief, that such instances were created influential requirement characters who never found justice in their countries by their judges considered dishonorable, and invented and created supranational bodies. By contrast, Anglo-Saxon justice (which does not endorse and is home to such high-sounding foreign institutions) considers that its justice dictated by their juries is actually given by ordinary citizens, and people almost never wrong, and yes he was wrong is in right, because it is an extenuating human being and there is no infallible system of justice unless the divine which is another field or singing.

view of the above, no country would dare to impose measures or sanctions against a nation with jury judgments in this being a sovereign decision of the people itself, resulting in palpable in those northern states is truly effective Latinism VOX POPULI VOX DEI "the people's voice is the voice of God."

In conclusion, it is questionable - in our country - to discuss the death penalty extremely complicated issue to the extent that the courts are far from satisfactory, being criticized by the unreliable work of some judges unable to solve simple problems as we are exposed daily to the media and where many decisions are wrong to understand the mass population to apologize for the fact of being framed in the right but is no longer justice side, and pretend to leave the application of the death penalty on those same judges just would not be, what would be basing itself is the need to establish a jury trial because the jury only that it is the town itself may apply the penalty death, the end, if only you were to become a tribunal of judges have the option to decide.